A dispute between an Indian company and a foreign business can no longer be approached as a simple question of which court has jurisdiction.

Consider this: an Indian company enters into a supply agreement with a Singapore-based company, the contract provides for arbitration in Singapore, but the foreign company’s assets are located in India. A favourable award is only the beginning. The real question is whether and how that award can be enforced.

This is where India's legal framework becomes significant.

Under Section 44 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a “foreign award” is one arising from a commercial legal relationship and made in a territory notified by the Central Government as a convention country. Sections 47 to 49 then govern the recognition and enforcement of such awards in India.

The framework is closely connected with the New York Convention, which seeks to facilitate recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards across jurisdictions.

But arbitration is not the only consideration.

The Hague Choice of Court Convention and the Singapore Convention on Mediation reflect a wider international movement towards making cross-border dispute resolution more predictable.

For businesses, the lesson is straightforward: a dispute-resolution clause should be drafted with enforcement in mind, not merely litigation in mind.

The choice of governing law, forum or arbitral seat, jurisdiction and the location of assets can determine whether a legal victory becomes a commercial recovery.

In cross-border commerce, winning the dispute is only half the battle. Enforcing the result is where the real strategy begins.